Preaching to the choir

Posted Dec 16, 2006 11:38 UTC (Sat) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648)
In reply to: Preaching to the choir by mdekkers
Parent article: "BadVista.org": FSF launches campaign against Microsoft Vista

> I would like to see the FSF take a step back, and devise campaigns that
promote free software in a positive way, with a strong focus on how it
helps business and consumers, how and where it is better, where it isn't,
and ultimately, what it can do for your bottom line.

The FSF will promote the use of free software and oppose the use of
proprietary software even where the competing proprietary software is
technically superior. The FSF's public position is and always has been
that proprietary software is unethical and that you should therefore not
use it. All of its public statements will reflect this view, and its
campaigns to promote free software will be focused around getting others
to agree with its view; they will not promote the technical advantages of
specific free software packages divorced from the ethical advantages.
Someone ignorant of the ethical advantages of free software would switch
back to a proprietary package whenever the proprietary one happened to
temporarily be technically better, so such a promotion would be
detrimental to the FSF's goals. Due to the promotions of others, this in
fact happened with the Qt toolkit before it became free software, and
continues to happen with Java while its conversion to free software is
incomplete.

Given how familiar you are with free software, I'm surprised you were so
unaware of the mission of the FSF that you would post something like this.
It is not necessarily bad that your goals are not the same as the FSF's,
but you should not expect that it will work towards your goals when they
are in opposition to its.

Preaching to the choir

Posted Dec 16, 2006 18:25 UTC (Sat) by mdekkers (guest, #85) [Link] (6 responses)

"Given how familiar you are with free software, I'm surprised you were so unaware of the mission of the FSF that you would post something like this. It is not necessarily bad that your goals are not the same as the FSF's, but you should not expect that it will work towards your goals when they are in opposition to its."

I am pretty familliar with where the FSF stands, and how they feel about anything that doesn't adhere to their own strict view of the world. The issue here is that 99% of the consumers and business decision makers out there don't know this, and for them, it's all open source. First of all we are discussing something as exciting as "Software Licensing" - yawn - secondly, the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software is about as clear and important to people as the different streams of belief in the Greek Orthodox Church.

When the FSF raises it's shrill voice, and proclaims everybody but their own followers as wrong and evil, they harm not only their own cause, but also through extension the whole of the open source environment. As always, when you have a very vocal radicalised minority, they only serve to polarise views and preclude any possibility of compromise. Extremeism, whatever shape it takes, is simply not a good thing.

I remember working on arranging a screening of RevolutionOS when I was working (as an open source consultant) for a large blue chip consulting firm - an awereness building session for all the consultants that had little or no exposure to open source. I watched the movie with my manager and my team - we all saw it for the first time - and about half-way through we all decided it would do more harm then good. The majority of the film is good stuff, and narrates the rise and rise of open source in a really clear and positive way. Everytime the FSF gets involved in the film though, their radicalised, polarised views simply tear down the rest. Too many cringing moments involving RMS. Not too long after, I started thinking if there really was a solid future pushing what amounts to an ideology into business IT.

I deploy and use hardware and software on the basis of architectural decisions, functionality, and technical and business merit, not on the basis of the license it ships with. Any enterprise architect that does different is simply no good. If my functional and technical requirements can be served with open source software, then so much the better. If they can't, then tough. My job, at the end of the day, is to design and build systems that work, not to push an ideology.

If the badvista website would have been a balanced and open discission on the strenghts and weaknesses of the Vista OS, great. It could have even made a bit of a difference. But it isn't and in my opinion in its current form it does more harm then good.

Preaching to the choir

Posted Dec 16, 2006 19:24 UTC (Sat) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] (1 responses)

>When the FSF raises it's shrill voice, and proclaims everybody but their own followers as wrong and evil,

They don't. They say proprietary software is divisive and harmful to society. If you want to argue that, fine, but please don't set up a strawman.

>they harm not only their own cause, but also through extension the whole of the open source environment.

No, you think their course harms your personal interests, which may or may not be so.

>As always, when you have a very vocal radicalised minority, they only serve to polarise views and preclude any possibility of compromise. Extremeism, whatever shape it takes, is simply not a good thing.

I'm sorry, but from my experience the "Extremism" is usually not to be found in this "vocal radicalised minority".

In case you have failed to notice it, a lot of the "long haired, bearded hippies" are raising an eyebrow at this action. And frankly, for someone riling against "Extremeism" you are dealing out a fair amount of inflammatory language and insulting rhetoric.

As for the rest of your rant about "profesionalism". I'm not sure whether a "sharp professional consultant" like yourself will ever graps this, but your business-case is simply not the FSF's ethical imperative.

Yes, that was ad hominem and irrelevant. Not very nice now, is it ?

Preaching to the choir

Posted Dec 17, 2006 1:30 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

As far as I can tell, `professional' in modern manager-speak is code for
`don't rock the boat, remove everything that gives you any individuality
or personality, obey orders'. Basically `become an interchangeable
component so we can fire you more easily'.

(I periodically get told by various uberbosses that I'm `not
professional'. They get all confused when I say that no, I'm not, not by
their definition: I'm an amateur, and that's a *good* thing.)

Preaching to the choir

Posted Dec 16, 2006 23:10 UTC (Sat) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] (2 responses)

> we are discussing something as exciting as "Software Licensing" - yawn

I know -- almost as exciting as Constitutional Law or something. I see people get worked up about issues like that, and my idiot-filter kicks in -- it's immediately clear that they can't have anything interesting to say.

Well said -- and the FSF is a particularly egregious example, they've been doing this since the dawn of free software. Just think where we could be by now, if we hadn't had this millstone always hanging around our neck.

Preaching to the choir

Posted Dec 18, 2006 0:56 UTC (Mon) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

""I know -- almost as exciting as Constitutional Law or something. I see people get worked up about issues like that, and my idiot-filter kicks in -- it's immediately clear that they can't have anything interesting to say""

Ya constitutional law is pointless and boring and distracts from the real issues such as economics.

I mean 'freedom of speech', who needs it? After all most media folk are liberals and should be shut down.

'right to keep and bare arms', bah. It just makes it easier for poor people to kill convience store workers.

Your right. Rights and freedoms and trying to point out they are relevent and important in this is day and age is pointless and counter productive to the bottom line. Those dirty hippies just need to stfu so real mean can get their work done and promote open source software properly.

Preaching to the choir

Posted Dec 18, 2006 14:51 UTC (Mon) by wookey (guest, #5501) [Link]

'right to keep and bare arms'

Indeed. Every man should stand up for the right to get sunburned if they feel like it.

[A pleasing lack of smileys in this thread - one has to exercise one's comedy detector 'manually'.]

Preaching to the choir

Posted Dec 17, 2006 12:10 UTC (Sun) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link]

I deploy and use hardware and software on the basis of architectural decisions, functionality, and technical and business merit, not on the basis of the license it ships with. [emphasis added] Any enterprise architect that does different is simply no good. If my functional and technical requirements can be served with open source software, then so much the better. If they can't, then tough. My job, at the end of the day, is to design and build systems that work, not to push an ideology.

A license can severely restrict you in the ways you can legally use a system. Making a bad licensing decision could result in a system that is unfit for your business. As a software engineer and consultant specialised in (Open Source) licensing issues I can tell you a few stories of how projects went wrong when people ignored the licensing aspects in their designs.

In an ideal project one is aware of licensing issues and business goals in all stages of the project. At the end of the day, it's your task to provide value to your employer. Designing a system that can not be sold because of licensing issues doesn't help anyone.